Ok, so my obvious point here is that Christianity puts a huge emphasis on the importance of being selfless. Sometimes we do it well and sometimes we don’t. As Matt would say, ‘what’s my point?’
Selfishness is the root of all evil deeds. Today’s culture tells us to please ourselves however we wish… as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone… or only hurts big faceless companies… or if it hurts someone who deserves it. How, if we train ourselves to please ourselves first can we ever make the right choices when it comes to a situation of moral consequence? It starts in little ways (like not helping when there are others in need because it inconveniences us), and progresses to the point where spouses feel justified in cheating because they don’t feel appreciated in their relationship. Or it leads to criminals who justify themselves for any number of reasons.
Selfishness is the plague of humanity and there are few worldviews that challenge us to think of ourselves last. Most of these are religious and give spiritual reasons for the importance of selflessness.
I am curious, has anyone experienced a focus on constant selflessness in a secular setting? I know there are selfless ideals, but for the most part I think it’s a mixed message and leads to mixed results. Obviously, the individualistic mind-set permeates into the lives of religious people, but the ideals are still there and this results in many people who make drastic changes to live for others.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Gordon wrote:
"Ok, so my obvious point here is that Christianity puts a huge emphasis on the importance of being selfless. Sometimes we do it well and sometimes we don’t."
And,
"I am curious, has anyone experienced a focus on constant selflessness in a secular setting?"
Question #1: If Christianity puts a larger than normal emphasis on selflessness, why can't Christians just smarten up and be selfless? If it is such a big deal, and if it is the cure for all that is bad in the world, why don't Christians, the ones who have the knowledge...and the power of God..., adhere to selfless living?
(I am asking a sort of rhetorical question. All of us taking part in this discussion know the Christian answer.)
[Oh, and to clarify: I am in no way saying that you are proposing the idea that Christians do it right all the time, or better than anyone else in the world. I am not stating that I believe you are claiming that Christians have the ability to be perfect. etc etc.]
Question #2 - Or rather, a rewording of sorts:
This is what was written: "I am curious, has anyone experienced a focus on constant selflessness in a secular setting?"
Perhaps it should be stated this way(?): I am curious, has anyone experienced a constant focus on selflessness in a secular setting?
Why do I think it should be reworded? Because Christianity doesn't even have a focus on constant selflessness - but rather, a Constant Focus on the aforementioned.
Semantics, I know. Gordon is trying to state that Christianity is good because it focuses on living with others for others, and other worldviews do not have such a great focus on this. Fair enough. I agree that selflessness is good *for the most part. I agree that Christianity does talk about it a lot. I agree that the world could be a much better place if selfishness were abolished (however, I only agree that this would make the world awesome if everyone in the world held to your worldview of selfishness being bad).
What do I mean here?
I mean to say that If everyone in the world believed in a looser definition of commitment, then maybe relationships that crumble would end much better...there would be no need for divorce, or infidelity...and the ones involved in the relationships would have a much easier time loving, and being loved by other people after the collapse of a previous relationship (which many believe is a normal process). Maybe the cultural definition of selfishness (mainly being "lack of consistency") is the reason that there is so much relational baggage clogging the love of the world.
Second to this, in my mind, is a similar idea. What is evil here is not evil there. Unjustified murder here is justified there. ETC. Are you looking for a universal ethic? The church cannot even maintain such a thing. Am I suggesting a situation ethic of sorts? Maybe. Am I suggesting relativism, no. You see, situations ethics (ask for clarification if it is needed please) makes this selfish/selfless thing so Not black and white.
When I think about the Christian ideal of selflessness, i see a few different things. First, I see a want for good in the world (gold star). Secondly, I see a push for justice (gold star). Third, there is a tacit belief in universal right and wrong - or the ability to know the situation right and wrongs (no star for you). And to stop at four, I see an utopian want, or rather, a belief in the idea that peace will come to man through the ideals of Christianity (i'm done talking about stars here).
To finish, concerning the fourth thing mentioned, I wonder: IF some other worldviews stressed selflessness as much as Christianity, would this be good enough for Christians? Or would there be just another thing wrong with That Type of selflessness, or something of the sort?
I am just writing my thoughts. I may disagree with everything a week from now. Thank you allowing me this space to write. Kill what I have written if you wish.
-Benjamin
Okay, I want to preface this by saying outright that I completely disagree with most of your post. Here is my breakdown:
-----------------------------------------
Assumption: Selfishness is the root of all evil deeds.
Assumption: Selfishness is the plague of humanity.
-----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
Premise: There are few worldviews that challenge us to think of ourselves last.
Premise: Most of these "think of ourselves last" worldviews are religious and give spiritual reasons for the importance of selflessness.
Premise: Christianity puts a huge emphasis on the importance of being selfless.
-----------------------------------------
Contrast To:
-----------------------------------------
Premise: Today’s culture tells us to please ourselves however we wish… as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone, only hurts big faceless companies, or if it hurts someone who deserves it.
Premise: It is difficult to imagine making right choices when in a moral situation if we are trained to put ourselves first.
-----------------------------------------
With Examples To Aid Point:
-----------------------------------------
Minor selfish example: Not helping when there are others in need because it inconveniences us.
Major selfish example: A spouse who feels justified in cheating because they don’t feel appreciated in their relationship.
Major selfish example: A criminal who justifies himself for any number of reasons.
-----------------------------------------
Where to begin? There are just so many things I disagree with here, so many emotional charges and a-priori assumptions.
First, your assumptions. I do not believe that selfishness is the root of all evil deeds. This whole claim is loaded with assumptions, such as that we agree on what is evil and what is good, and that all people act purely from one driving force (ie selfishness in the claim). I do not believe that selfishness is the plague of humanity. There are many flaws in humanity, ranging from attitudes to habits to any number of other things. I do not have to assert another plague to counter. This is an unfounded assumption that I do not agree with.
Your first premise: I don't believe I agree. How many are few? How many worldviews are there? Have you discerned the ultimate conclusions for all of these worldviews and found them to be selfish?
Your second premise: This is moot, since most worldviews would appear to be religious in the first place. Most of the worldviews which claim that we are not the product of chance are religious. This doesn't help assert much.
Your third premise: I will agree for the most part, though it is arguable that Christianity does not actually do this.
Your fourth premise: Much of north american culture does tell us to please ourselves however we wish. Much does not, if you take into account the religious part of culture, which tells us that much of pleasing ourselves is wrong and should be thought of as "evil." There is a common claim that it is okay to make oneself happy if it does not hurt anyone. There is a claim (I disagree that it is common) that it is okay to make oneself happy if it only hurts faceless companies. Law enforcement, corporate leadership, and the government would all disagree, to give some dissenting examples. The final claim is again open to interpretation. Who "deserves" to be hurt, and would the act of pleasing oneself be deliberately to hurt the other person, or an act of pleasure in and of itself? Way too ambiguous.
Your final premise: This again is a poor premise. What if putting ourselves first IS the right choice? Who decides what the "right" choice is? You may not be able to imagine making such decisions, but you can only speak for yourself on this matter.
Then your examples: I don't agree that they add any weight to the argument at all, since they can all be countered. In the first, what if it would inconvenience someone to help others in need because it would be harming them? A poor man trying to feed his family would not help a beggar because it would "inconvenience" him. The whole term "inconvenience" is again up to interpretation. In your second example, I think Ben countered rather well. In the final one, you are assuming that the law was "right" in the first place. If an unjust law were made, and then a man broke the law and justified himself by saying he was acting for the good of whomever, your assertion would be that the man is wrong and was evil for acting selfish.
-----------------------------------------
I don't want to come across as mean, but this whole argument is just far too loaded for me to take. After reading through the past few posts, and not writing very much at all, I am coming to believe that I don't see the point in any of this line of discussion. In the end, it boils down for me into a very simple notion. Christianity makes claims about reality which I disagree with. Is it beneficial for mankind? Moot. The question for me is whether or not Christianity (or religion in general) is necessary for humanity. I believe that mankind would get along without it, and I have seen more examples of it doing harm than good, in both the past and the present. As such, I'm thankful for this site and the questions, but probably not for the intended reasons. I'll still read this blog, but I doubt I will be writing much more, since I cannot suspend enough of my critiques of religion any more to engage in a satisfying way for anyone but myself. (Presuming that this post does not satisfy you). Oh, and clearly I CAN suspend my critiques, but I am too tired to WANT to any more.
Cheers.
-Leif-
i think donkey makes an excellent basic argument.
of course there exist selfish Christians. of course we have to talk about situational ethics. of course each of donkey's example illustrations and generalizations could be debated and picked through with a fine-toothed comb (as could each of ben and leif's counter-points. but is it worth it?).
to me it is all just a distraction from donkey's basic point, which is a good one. and i'll state it this way: Selfishness is a problem. We're not talking about taking care of your self, or being who you are, or any of that: We're talking about base and exalted self-centeredness; Selfishness. Whether it is THE problem or not we can debate until we are blue in the face. But when self-focus is over-exalted and individualism rampant, you have problems. Not only personal problems (addictions and such) but social problems (community disintegrates).
In Christianity (and indeed in some other religions) you have an impetus and a basis for unselfish attitudes and actions. This is good. Even selfish Christians have something that, if they stick with it, will reform them. This is good.
Sure there are jerks in church, but PLENTY, though works in progress, are wonderful and loving people. In fact, the most judgmental people I come in contact with nowadays are atheists, who can't stop throwing it in Christian's faces, even though they don't really have a moral basis to do so. They are using the Christian's moral basis to judge Christians so they can go their merry way at ease with their atheism.
I just spent a weekend watching a dozen old ladies in my church prepare a huge meal for a funeral for a person and a community who needed them but whom they didn't even know. These are probably the batty old church ladies you have in mind when you caricature church people. And there are those. But spend 15 minutes in a kitchen with them and you actually see human beings who are better today than they would have been if not for Christ. They are loving as best they can, giving a whole Saturday to help, with nothing to show for it afterwards but a sleepless night thanks to arthritis and who knows what else from standing up and serving all day.
I guess you can go ahead and argue that selflessness is not necessarily a good thing. You can argue each and every premise donkey or anyone brings up. But what are you going to live? And what should the world step forward on? I'd say the selflessness of Christianity-proper is as valuable a thing as one can find.
Point: Donkey.
Leif I think you need to be a bit more philosophically charitable to Donkey’s ideas. I agree with your breakdown of his ideas but I think you are taking his points too seriously and not really getting at what he wants to say. Your critique, though through and correct, attacks what has been written and does not really engage in what is being said.
If Gordon would have known you were to be so strict with your response, he would have likely been more formal and avoided most of your problems with his post.
Being intellectually charitable means we try to hear what is intended along with what is actually said.
I think more or less Gordon is conversing as opposed to writing a treatise and so to the same point that you find what he says uninformative (from a very logically perspective) so to, I think, your criticism is uninformative from a conversational perspective.
Let us not debate method, but just the ideas presented.
Gordon said:
“Selfishness is the root of all evil deeds”
I agree with Leif on his criticism here; you could state this as true but I think it greatly oversimplifies things. Even for your support, Gordon, it oversimplifies that you want to show how the Church does good things.
The idea that ‘we should not be selfish’ or the follow-through that ‘the world would be a much better place if we were not all so selfish,’ is not really a Christian idea. I think what you would more likely want to argue is that Christianity gives a really good way to accomplish this goal.
If that is what you are saying then I agree, but that does not tell us why we should pick the Christian way over others.
Gordon said:
“Today’s culture tells us to please ourselves however we wish… as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone… or only hurts big faceless companies… or if it hurts someone who deserves it.”
And
“there are few worldviews that challenge us to think of ourselves last. Most of these are religious and give spiritual reasons for the importance of selflessness.”
I am assuming here you meant to say ‘there are few [secular] worldviews that challenge us to think of ourselves last;’ and drawing an important contrast with spiritual and religious aims to bring about selflessness.
On the one hand you are somewhat correct here; most of our morality can and is traced back to various religions; however I think this is because predominantly, helping society be moral was a major point to having a religion. Thus I think it only an obvious point to say that these have religious origin. Again that doesn’t seem to suggest anything.
It would, if we found it hard and impossible to argue morality outside of God, but here is where I think the religious person and be greatly misinformed. For it is not hard, nor even difficult. We DO have many worldviews that challenge us to think about ourselves last: ‘ask not what your country and do for you but rather what you can do for your country.’
Gordon said:
“I am curious, has anyone experienced a focus on constant selflessness in a secular setting?”
Sure, the army.
Much ancient philosophy was about right action, Virtue Ethics and how being selfless is a fundamental aspect of a great nation. Take even the basic claim of democracy in the context of armies: ‘we fight for your freedom’ as in the point being to die so that other’s can live freely.
I think the negative view you have of our current culture is more based in advertising; and media can only account for so much right? I think if you took a good look into small towns, government committees and organizational groups, you would find what you claim is lacking.
I think the general error here is the idea that being selfless is intrinsically (or done best) as an idea of religious origin (the ontology of such being wholly based in religious theology or a Holy Book of some kind). That is just not true, though I can understand how one might see it that way given a faulty foundation.
Religious people love to talk about Armageddon, how societies are crumbling and how we are never morally progressing. I understand why they argue this, because if this was not the case of reality, then we would start to find less and less need for religion. You can likely see where I am going here.
Letting go of those fears (that society is crumbling, that I go to hell if I am bad and that there is no safe place outside of the Church) was a major step toward atheism for me. I think these are some powerful ways the religious keep hold of their own kind. It is similar to the critique against religious morality that is near wholly based in fear of an angry moral enforcer. Do we really want to be believers because we are afraid of not being? I will leave it at that (I understand that is a side issue so I am just blabbing here).
So yeah, to finish: I think Gordon is oversimplifying a little bit here. To be fair, if your point is that Christianity has a good prescription for societal selfishness, then yes I agree.
Why we should pick it over others, and if it is a more reasonable account or solution than other options has been left unsaid.
Jon:
Though I appreciate what you wrote, I would argue that selflessness-proper could be considered more pure than christian-proper-selflessness.
Leif, you said:
"Is it beneficial for mankind? Moot. The question for me is whether or not Christianity (or religion in general) is necessary for humanity. I believe that mankind would get along without it, and I have seen more examples of it doing harm than good, in both the past and the present."
Frankly, I am a little disappointed. I am not surprised that you think society could get along better without religion. Most atheists hold this view. It is precisely for this reason that I wanted to have this discussion. However, if you are unwilling even to consider these points with me this discussion will fail. I don't expect that you agree with me, only that you dialog.
I am not writing very good opening articles. That much is apparent to me. I am just trying to introduce a topic and we have spent more time discussing my method of doing so than anything else. While it's good for me to learn better ways to express myself and argue a point, you are missing the heart of what I am saying.
Like Jon and Joel have said, please focus the intended point of my post rather than how I introduced it.
I realize that the statement:
"Selfishness is the root of all evil deeds."
could be a discussion all in itself and wasn't a concise enough point.
Please take it as:
Selfishness is not good.
Ben challenged the selfishness is bad ideal by saying:
"If everyone in the world believed in a looser definition of commitment, then maybe relationships that crumble would end much better...there would be no need for divorce, or infidelity...and the ones involved in the relationships would have a much easier time loving, and being loved by other people after the collapse of a previous relationship (which many believe is a normal process)."
Let's take a look at this example. Ben says that if we all saw relationships as being less permanent then people wouldn't get hurt as bad.
This is exactly my point. Culture today seems to tell us that we are the center of the universe. Yes, we should care about others, but only from our individualistic perspective. This is very short-sighted. I try not to hurt anybody but when I am unhappy in a relationship I want it over, which often leads to hurting someone. So, let's change culture so that relationships aren't so permanent so it's easier to slip in and out of relationships as I desire.
Suddenly, relationships are nothing more than a means to meeting my own needs and desires. When they are not meeting my expectations I end the relationship and move on.
Picture such a society. Does that sound relational or does that sound like millions of individuals having shallow interactions with other individuals.
Humans are not singular entities. We are social. That is the beauty and glory of the human race. All we can do and accomplish is nothing compare to the simple relationships between people.
Selfishness is poison to relationship. Yes, it is unhealthy to live entirely for others, but it is just as unhealthy to live only for yourself.
If we can agree that selfishness is bad, then perhaps we can move on to the rest of the argument:
Christianity does a better job of promoting selflessness than secular society.
I asked for examples of secular selflessness.
Joel said an army.
This is a great example. Individuals are encouraged to ignore personal needs in order to accomplish the greater goals of the group. However, army life is very different from civilian life, so let's look at some more civilian examples.
"small towns, government committees and organizational groups"
These are great examples of groups of people working together to accomplish common goals.
So, what advantage does the religious selflessness have over secular selflessness?
The main difference is personal identity. Religious identity identifies oneself as part of a greater body with a definite leader (much like an army) and makes it more natural to think of the group and the goals of the group before oneself and one self's own goals.
Secular identity comes from a more individualistic identity. I am what I believe myself to be. I set my own moral code and I am my own judge. Thus, a more individualistic mindset is in place.
NOW, as you prepare to jump down my throat on this claim, I realize the counter arguments would be that religious people are just as affected by individualism and secular people can feel as though they are a part of a greater group. Before you prepare a heated rebuttal, please ponder it a moment. Do you feel as connected to a group or greater purpose as an atheist as you did when you were a Christian? Personally, I feel more connected now than I did before. I feel more accountable. I feel a greater desire to be selfless for the good of the group. Perhaps, your experiences have been different. If so, please share them.
Here's the thing Gordon: you are not listening to opposing arguments. You are seeing them, picking out one thing, and then making an emotion-based response to the point. You acknowledge a rebuttal (the army example above), but show no sign of conceding the point. You say, "I see that is a good point," and then move right along as though your argument is unphased.
You want to say that religion makes society better, and we cannot discuss it without a dialogue on each point, but you won't consider the points yourself. I've looked at these and past points, both on this site and while I was a christian myself. I've examined the claims from both sides, with all the knowledege I now have, and I have been willing to take in critiques and allow my concessions to change me.
I see no evidence that you are doing the same. You want to discuss things, so I can only see two ways of doing so:
1) You just want to shoot the breeze, mention a point and then mention another, wait your turn while the other side talks and then make another comment (much like any simple bar discussion), which at the end of the day will result in nobody walking away changed.
2) You actually want to come to a conclusion about one side being right. If that is the case, then we are debating the issue. If we are debating the issue, you need to be clear about what you are saying, and when someone shows you the assumptions you are making, or gives you a counter-example that weakens or breaks your argument, you need to admit it and move on. Restate your argument in a way which is definite, clear, and says exactly what you mean. If you cannot do that, and instead resort to an emotionally charged reply that disguises or distracts the issue at hand, then you aren't willing to come out of the debate changed, and only want to change the opposing group.
I don't want to be in a debate with someone who is only interested in changing the other side, and refuses to be changed themselves. (And before you start in, Jon, I've BEEN changed, so don't you dare claim some shit about me not willing to be changed in this debate.)
I really think that you want to have a discussion that can change you, or at the very least that you BELIEVE this to be true. However, if you are not, then what is the point?
Like I've said, and like Joel clarified, I have no more "grace" or "charity" for these discussions. I'll sit back and just read while the discussion continues if you want to have a more free realm of chat, but if you want me to dialogue with you Gordon, then I'm going to call you on every flawed argument I see. I will also (as I have) concede every valid point, and expect the same (on both accounts) from everyone else. That, in my opinion, is the only way to come out of a discussion like this grounded in a belief.
Sorry, I can see why you would be frustrated. It could very well seem as though I am not giving sufficient response to valid counter-points. I'm not being ignorant, Leif, it's just how I process. Someone comes up with a valid point that challenges what I hold to be true. My initial response is to disagree. I want to throw everything that I have at this new idea so that I can test it's validity. Then later I internalize and come to a conclusion.
I guarantee that I, at least, will be changed by this discussion. However, I am not taking a logic class at this moment. Please remember that. I'm just using what I have to try to have this discussion and it becomes more and more apparent that it is insufficient.
Joel's army analogy is good, but it is not civilian. Army culture is very different from the rest of society. I did address this. I am talking about regular day to day culture. Can you concede this point?
Better examples are the:
"small towns, government committees and organizational groups"
This is a good argument and the only thing I can think to counter with is what I stated above. Feel free to critique it.
I'll concede when I'm wrong, but don't expect me to just roll over as soon as a counter-point is made. I'm trying to put up a good fight here.
What I still don't understand is how selflessness is in any way exclusive to Christianity. Couldn't Jon's old Church ladies be found in a lot of other groups as well? I don't mean to beat this dead horse, but I don't feel this has been responded to.
Or, to ask the question another way:
Jon is making the claim that these women are better because of Christ. That's probably true. I'm pretty sure it is true. But if I can say that I've been made less selfish by getting rid of Christ in my life, then isn't Jon's/Donkey's point kind of irrelevant or neutralized?
For some folks Christianity helps them be better people. I don't dispute this. For others it's another religion, or a political cause, or something. For me it was stepping out of belief. Not that I'm a saint or anything.
D'you understand what I'm asking?
Tagging along with Matthew's comment/question about selflessness being exclusive to Christianity:
--------
Is it safe to say that the only thing that makes Christianity "better" than any other worldview in this world, is that it is the truth?
From this perspective, of course every other life-view won't be as good...mainly because although other life-views may have good strong intentions, they are Not Rooted In The Revelatory Truth, or in the right Faith-Choice.
Other than the ideological foundations, most of the things that Christians do...other humans do as well! If you were not a Christian, but rather a Muslim, would you not be stating the same things?
Your faith is good for society, your actions are good for society. You have good intentions. Your group is doing it well.
Doing what well? The things that Your Group purports to be essentially important to human existence.
In this discussion, I understand that you (Gordon) are attempting to bring forth the idea that Christianity is essentially good for society. Why are you bringing this forth? I am sure you have explained this already, but it would be good for you to state your intentions one more time for me.
The reason I am asking for this statement again:
In my opinion, if one is doing something good for society, this is good. However, if I had to choose between doing something good, and doing something good which is rooted in a mystical, fictional understanding of existence...I would much rather the first.
Why would I much rather the first?
Because although religion may be good in many respects, it encourages and endorses anti-intellectual endeavors, bigotry masked as holiness, and an absolutely abhorrent religious/pseudo-intellectual arrogance - which claims knowledge and understanding when there is none.
All of these things are Bad for humanity. Even if they are glued to buying food for the homeless.
PLEASE critique this.
-Benjamin
Ben asked:
"Why are you bringing [the idea that Christianity is essentially good for society] forth?"
Many atheists talk about religion and Christianity as though it is the plague of humanity or at least that we would all be better off without it. I disagree, thus the discussion.
Matt said:
"For some folks Christianity helps them be better people. I don't dispute this. For others it's another religion, or a political cause, or something. For me it was stepping out of belief. Not that I'm a saint or anything."
Ben said:
"Because although religion may be good in many respects, it encourages and endorses anti-intellectual endeavors, bigotry masked as holiness, and an absolutely abhorrent religious/pseudo-intellectual arrogance - which claims knowledge and understanding when there is none."
It has been stated that everything good in religion can be found elsewhere. Perhaps. For many people, like yourselves, this may be true. Perhaps it takes getting away from organized religion to make you less selfish and a better person. However, there are many people who don't have that experience. Rather, they seem to need some sort of spiritual experience or motivation to drive them to become better people.
Cynicism aside, can you all agree that some horrible people have been impacted by Christianity to become much better people,? Society benefits from these people being changed by religion into functioning members of society.
Is that not good? Is that not perhaps important?
Yes, you suggest that they could be changed through secular means, and that may be true. But perhaps some of them really need a spiritual experience to change their lifestyle.
Yes there are many downfalls associated with religion. However, these too can be found anywhere else. Don't forget that.
............
word verification: unpul
Okay Gordon, now you are starting to sound like a really reasonable religious person to me.
Gordon said:
“It has been stated that everything good in religion can be found elsewhere. Perhaps.”
It is not a perhaps, it is a fact.
Once you fully acknowledge this and see the world big enough like this, I think you will discover just how unreasonable it is to go around thinking one faith better than another or better than no faith.
Be careful, you just might shed that ignorance I like to attack you with; and if you did that, who would I attack? (there is always Jon :))
This somewhat centers around my main frustration with religious people. You have a good story, you have good ideals, you have a good intending community and for the most part you do some really wonderful things. I agree with all these things. If you are looking for an atheist you want to convince of these things then you have to keep looking, for I am not one of them.
Your religion is fine, just like all the rest; but it is not more significant than the rest. If you really wanted to push you could find an easy comparison and say ‘Isn’t Christianity better than this religion?’ I would have to agree but why should that matter?
Why are religious people so concerned with pushing their faith as being more important in some way or another than other faiths? Shouldn’t it be more about living well, and trying to end the constant religious segregation, religious theo-centrism and constant religious / culture wars?
Obviously you feel your faith is better than other faiths, for that is why you have picked it. No one is trying to take that away from you. No one is saying you cannot be good or utilize your faith’s path to virtue; all we are saying is that you be reasonable. And to be that way you must take your religion off the pedestal it is placed upon.
Religion can do good things, who is disputing this? But so long as religion desires to enforce an ontological ‘us vs. them’ mentality where it is part of being a good Christian to think that Christianity is the best and most reasonable religion out there, then I think you are just a really terrible fundamentalist with nice clothes on. You are the spring-board for vicious actions, you are promoting it.
That kind of philosophy makes dialogue difficult, for how can you listen to someone else who is not part of your group, who has not seen the light or who does not have the Holy Spirit in their hearts?
Gordon said:
“Yes, you suggest that they could be changed through secular means, and that may be true.”
If you can admit that religion is not the only path to moral goodness and happiness and that other religions have the same stake in their claim to Revelation, then you will have transcended my criticism.
How will you continue to think, talk and change the world, is it still possible for you if you give up Christianity’s special status as the best religion (objectively) and just allow yourself to be one who professes that the story of Christ changed your personal life and it can for others? Why not?
Does that really take anything away from all your claims, to see that they are claims and that all other people are just as possible to be right, other religions are just as possible to be correct, even the non-religious?
Yes, it will take away an immature desire to solve criticism problems by ignorance! It will take away the drive to ignore other options, for they will no longer be dangerous but interesting. It will take away the convenience of thinking oneself in solipsism for the sake of solidarity.
The most beautiful thing it will do is take away the value of thinking in an ‘us vs. them’ mentality; for it will no longer be necessary to keep one’s self apart. It will become obvious that the more you experience, read and learn- the more reasonable you will become. (As opposed to the tainted religious ideal that the more set apart and pure you are the more closer to God you become).
Gordon said:
“But perhaps some of them really need a spiritual experience to change their lifestyle. Yes there are many downfalls associated with religion. However, these too can be found anywhere else. Don't forget that.”
I agree! AGREE, AGREE, AGREE!!!!!
Of course Christianity is a good possible path to good things; it isn’t one of the world’s most popular religions for no reason.
If you can see your religion in the greater context of a world full of religions and not only see that world as the same one the Bible talks about, but only possibly for you personally convincingly but intellectually open to the plethora of other stories; then I will have very little to be critical about.
But realize that your scripture says ‘Jesus is the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the father except through me’ and you might have to think about that claim, perhaps find it less powerful than how it has been taken in the past or perhaps find it unfounded and unjustifiable (like Lev. 19:19 or those who believe in a real seven day creation story).
It is a hard choice to make, but I think you can still be good Christians after making it. You can still be a powerful voice for Christian ideas in the world at large; you will just no longer have to think as your religion as exclusive (that was only harming it anyway).
So, what is it then; what do you say?
I really liked this post Joel. Gives me lots to think about. Or maybe I just like it because you agreed with something I said for a change...
Either way, I will have to consider you words. I'm heading out for the weekend, so I'll try to comment when I get back.
One question though,
you said:
"But realize that your scripture says ‘Jesus is the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the father except through me’ and you might have to think about that claim, perhaps find it less powerful than how it has been taken in the past or perhaps find it unfounded and unjustifiable (like Lev. 19:19 or those who believe in a real seven day creation story)."
That is a hare step to take, but one I have wrestled with lots. I do believe that other religions have access to truth, but that is not the same as saying that I think everything they believe holds equal weight to what I believe.
I see the importance of what you are saying, but how can we see the validity of another set of beliefs if we don't entirely agree with them? Do we just pick out the 'good' stuff and disregard the rest?
How do you guys value religion if you ultimately disagree with their core beliefs and feel that anything good they offer can be found elsewhere?
Gordon said:
"I do believe that other religions have access to truth, but that is not the same as saying that I think everything they believe holds equal weight to what I believe."
For sure, I am not suggesting that we turn off our minds but turn them up. You do not have to consider all other beliefs as being equal in the sense that they all carry the same weight, but rather that they are all equal in that they all start from the same
foundation. That is another way of saying we are all rational, or that reason is our common guide.
You still get to come down on ther beliefs as hard as you want too, only for clout you will be using reason and not an ontological axe. You put the person seraching first.
The phenomenon first, ontology second; showing how you come to your conclusions as opposed to starting there.
In this sense, other religious beliefs can become interesting, in that they seem to be other thought patterns which come to similar conclusions. Think of it this way: once you have gotten your head around all those other options you will either see just how much more reasonable your beliefs and your religion are, or you will find that we are all just
trying to do the same thing (be good) and the idea that we all should be one way or another
is less than desirable.
Gordon said:
"How can we see the validity of another set of beliefs if we don't entirely agree with them?
Do we just pick out the 'good' stuff and disregard the rest?"
By putting reason before ontology, you are allowed to redefine what you mean by 'good' for it no longer has to equal something specifically Christianesque. You might want to start by trying to figure out what you mean when you say 'good' and look into how other religious and non-religious claims fit in with or work against such an idea. I think you might find
more common ground than uncommon ground (that is the beauty of existence, we are all remarkably similar).
For example you might want to tart with something really basic, such as the idea of the soul. Nearly all religions hold to this idea, and many are very different than others. Looking at these without one particular religious set of coloured glasses might really enlighten your concept of it. After a lot of exploration you might find one take more interesting or more powerful or more resonable than all others and it might even be the Christian version. The best part is that you will now have a very informed take on the subject, and your understanding of it will not be tempered by how much you DON'T know but tempered by how much you DO know. I bet you would have some really interesting and powerful things to say on the subject.
Isn't that what life's all about? Exploration, living well and being good? Just think about how much more interesting the subject can be if you take it from a human point of view, rather than just a Christain point of view.
With reason you do not have to pick out good stuff or disregard anything. You can just form
an intelligent opinion on such matters and share that opinion to those around you. The idea
of truth can be more a sense of discovery as opposed to some static, small and boxed thingy
which HAS to be such and such.
Seeing how the ideas of 'truth', 'good' and 'validation' seem to be what you are interested in, you might want to take a cross-religious examaination of these concepts. Look into what it means for all of them when they say something is 'good', 'true' or 'valid'. You seem to have a good grasp on what Christianty thinks such things qualify; why not make direct
comparisons in other religious and non-religious contexts? I would be interested in what
you might find.
Gordon said:
"How do you guys value religion if you ultimately disagree with their core beliefs and feel that anything good they offer can be found elsewhere?"
For me it is not a take it or leave it setting. I think Christiantiy has a lot of things
right but a lot of things wrong. If I am forced to take it all or leave it all (as most religious mentality can tend to enforce) then I am forced to leave it all. This is directly where being reasonable fits in you see, because once we place reason as our standard then it is okay for religions to have problems; we can simply point these out and say they are problems.
This is already happening in the feilds of hermenutics. Even your denomination has beliefs which can be taken from the Bible but are considered 'wrong.' How did they figure that out if the Bible does not say exactly 'this is true but this is not true?' Well, they have
their reason and their community to convince and that is how a particular demonination is
created.
If we can do that, then why can't we just let go of this value to think of ourselves as being
totally correct? The idea that the Bible has to be true since it is from God? The idea that
MY interpretation is the best and MY church is the best so forth? Why do it at all?
Why not just have good conversations and debate it out, come to our own conclusions?
Sure we can find all kinds of similar stories, similar values in other religions and in non-religions; but we are not just valuing truth alone, we are valuing the journey and the
conversational community built around it. Let's keep growing it, for surely only good things
come when we keep talking? When we extent our minds further and futher, when we begin to
see others not as others but as brothers, those who are on similar but different paths, pursuing similar but different goals?
I think we might be able to live together with more success, if we DIDN'T think our religion was the only way, was the best way, had the only true path to God, had the right Revelation. It seems we humans take this idea of God very seriouslly, so why not open those doors and get the conversation going more and more?
I value the reason, and those religious people who explain to me their ideas, who want to have a real conversation and not just 'teach' me the right way; to them I am interested and open-minded. I am curious about God as they describe it. I do not believe in God, but I am still interested in talking about God, most likely always will be.
And because I am curious, that is why I want to be reasonable.
I agree with what you have said. However, I think that there is a greater work ahead with convincing most religious people to accept reason as their main means of coming to truth and to be willing to examine wider avenues of truth than they are accustomed to.
I would really like to implore you all to attempt to be less confrontation in some ways when talking to religious people. You have a lot of good and challenging things to say but I think they sometimes get lost in aggressive attacks on the ignorance of said people.
Anyway, I may have been diverted from the direction I was heading with this, so I may just hand the reigns back to Ben for him to take things where he would like.
P.S. I would be interested in discussing ideas on the soul and what not with this group some time soon. It would be interesting if we could find a subject we were all interested in, and then have everyone write up an article addressing a different angle. Then we could work through them one at a time and discuss what everyone thinks.
sure im up for that
I'm up for moving on, but would prefer a final article from you Gordon. I am a man who needs closure.
You know what I would LOVE? What I think we could all really benefit from? Standardized definitions and claims.
What I would love to do is have the christian side write out a statement of beliefs about christianity. You guys write a list of things which you believe are the core principles of christianity. The things which you can NOT claim to be wrong. Just the very heart and soul of it. You write them out in point form, make sure you are in agreement about these VERY CORE AND VERY TRUE PRINCIPLES, and then post it.
Then we can debate them. You explain why they make sense, why they are true, and why (as the unbelieving sinners destined for hell) we should believe you. We, as those who believe it more likely that god does NOT exist, explain why we think you are wrong, and show you where we find flaws in your reasons.
Then we can actually get somewhere. The christian side cannot argue that we are mis-representing christianity, because you will have written the terms we use. You won't be able to say, "yes, but not all christians believe such and such," because we will only be arguing the core values which you claim every single christian has to believe in order to be a christian.
For your benefit, the non-christian side will not be able to bring in beliefs or values which are seen as controversial, because we can only argue against what you claim to be the heart and soul of christianity.
What do you say? Anyone game? I think that if we could do this, there would be a rather clear victor in the debate, and it may help people choose their sides with more certainty than before.
I wish to see the aforementioned as well. What a great delimitative proposal. Thank you for that.
It is up to Gordon and Jon to make this possible though. So, the ball is in their court now.
-Benjamin
For the record, I was not arguing about whether Christianity was true or not. We have done that elsewhere. I wanted to discuss whether it, as a cultural group is worth having around to people who do not necessarily believe that its tenants of faith are true.
However, if you'd like to go back to discussing the truthfulness of Christianity and want to declare a victor, then I suppose I could attempt to be a good sport and put up some sort of a fight.
What do you think Jon? My name is Gordon Hamilton if you've never caught that. If you're in, find me on facebook and we can hash something out.
I am down for whatever conversation comes up. Leif's idea really perks my interest. HOWEVER, i would still appreciate a closing argument for this conversation first. Let me know if that is possible.
-Benjamin
my word was nuatrold
Benjamin Nuatrold.
or even better: Benjamin Nuatrold Nuatrold.
If my first name was Nuatrold, i would be a midget.
Nuatrold the traveling midget. I'm done now.
Post a Comment